The NCAA may have sought to "bluff" Penn State into accepting football sanctions in 2012 following the Jerry Sandusky scandal, a revelation university President Eric Barron called "deeply disturbing."

Emails released this week as part of a lawsuit against the governing body of college sports suggest that some NCAA officials questioned their own jurisdiction to sanction Penn State, calling it "a stretch," and expected Penn State to accept the punishment out of embarrassment.

Further, a former NCAA official wrote in 2012 that vacating Penn State's football victories from 1998-2011 was proper because the program's "pristine image" was "based on a lie."

"We find it deeply disturbing that NCAA officials in leadership positions would consider bluffing one of their member institutions, Penn State, to accept sanctions outside of their normal investigative and enforcement process," Barron and Keith Masser, chairman of Penn State's board of trustees, said in a statement. "We are considering our options. It is important to understand, however, that Penn State is in the midst of a number of legal and civil cases associated with these matters. We therefore have no additional comment."

The emails were attached as exhibits to a filing by state Sen. Jake Corman in his lawsuit against the NCAA, which had fined the university $60 million as part of the sanctions. Corman and Pennsylvania Treasurer Robert McCord sued the NCAA to keep the $60 million in Pennsylvania for child protection services.

Corman's latest filing challenged the NCAA's request to assert privilege over nearly 500 documents. The Centre Daily Times first posted the documents.

"The emails confirm what I have said all along. The NCAA lacked the legal authority to act and knew it," said Anthony Lubrano, a member of Penn State's board of trustees. "They bluffed Penn State into signing a consent decree as imposed by the NCAA. Now it's time for the NCAA to acknowledge its wrongdoing and tear up the consent decree."

The NCAA said Wednesday that the "selectively released' emails represented "debate and thorough consideration" regarding the sanctions process.

"The NCAA carefully examined its authority and responsibility to act in response to the athletics department's role detailed in the Freeh Report," the statement said. "Ultimately, advised by all information gathered, the Executive Committee determined to act and move forward with the Consent Decree."

Penn State trustees had hired former FBI Director Louis Freeh to investigate the administration's handling of allegations against Sandusky.

Chained together, the emails shed insight into the NCAA's approach to writing the 2012 consent decree that also banned Penn State from bowl participation for four years and reduced its number of football scholarships. Since then, the NCAA has eased those sanctions twice, including a September decision to restore Penn State's bowl eligibility and full roster of scholarships.

The emails are dated July 12-21, 2012, during a period just before NCAA President Mark Emmert's announcement of the sanctions on July 23. In one email, Julie Roe, the NCAA's former vice president of enforcement, wrote that she "characterized our approach to PSU as a bluff" in a conversation with Emmert.

Penn State has said it accepted terms of the consent decree to avoid a multi-year "death penalty" that the NCAA considered imposing on the football program. The NCAA departed from its standard enforcement policy, using the Freeh Report as the basis for the sanctions without conducting its own investigation.

The NCAA's Executive Committee, composed primarily of college presidents, oversaw the sanctions process rather than the Division I Committee on Infractions.

"I characterized our approach to PSU as a bluff when talking to Mark yesterday afternoon after the call," Roe wrote to Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs. "He basically agreed b/c [sic] I think he understands that if we made this an enforcement issue, we may win the immediate battle but lose the war when the COI [Committee on Infractions] has to rule. I think he is okay with that risk."

In an earlier email to Roe, Lennon questioned the NCAA's investigation and enforcement process of Penn State, calling it "a bit of a runaway train right now." Lennon wrote that he had concerns regarding the NCAA's jurisdiction to sanction Penn State.

"I know we are banking on the fact [Penn State] is so embarrassed they will do anything, but I am not sure about that, and [have] no confidence conference or other members will agree to any of that," Lennon wrote. "This will force the jurisdictional issue that we really don't have a great answer to that one."

Roe responded, "[The NCAA] could try to assert jurisdiction on this issue and may be successful but it'd be a stretch." She added that an argument that Penn State's senior leaders failed ethically was "reasonable and logical."

Lennon also questioned how Penn State's football team had gained a competitive advantage, a key component of NCAA sanctions, by allegedly not reporting Sandusky to outside law-enforcement officials in 2001. That was the year former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary reported seeing Sandusky in a football locker room shower with a minor.

Some NCAA officials, including Emmert, felt that Penn State did gain a competitive advantage, Roe wrote. Others disagreed.

"The point some have made is that had PSU dealt with this in 2001, they might have suffered a recruiting disadvantage due to the bad publicity at that point," Roe wrote in 2012. "Given that they have a decent recruiting class now, not sure this holds up."

It's unclear to which recruiting class Roe was referring, but the email was written five months after quarterback Christian Hackenberg and tight end Adam Breneman, two highly regarded national recruits, verbally committed to Penn State.

The emails also addressed the NCAA's decision to vacate Penn State's 112 wins from 1998-2011, including 111 of former coach Joe Paterno. Roe called the decision "the right move."

"Penn State had great success on the field from 1998-2012 and those wins were based on a pristine image which was a lie," she wrote. "As a result, those wins need to be taken away."

The emails are the latest tangle stemming from Corman's 2013 lawsuit against the NCAA, scheduled for trial in January. The NCAA asked for the suit to be dismissed after agreeing that the $60 million fine would be distributed to Pennsylvania organizations that help prevent child abuse.

The NCAA also asked a federal judge to declare unconstitutional Pennsylvania's 2013 Endowment Act, which directed the fine money to remain in-state. In addition, the NCAA asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to end the suit, which is scheduled for trial in January on the validity of the consent decree.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the NCAA's argument that the suit should be ended because the Commonwealth Court has repeatedly refused to dismiss it, despite an agreement to settle the case.

In an opinion last week, Commonwealth Court Judge Anne E. Covey said the NCAA was "forum shopping" for a favorable ruling. She wrote that such forum shopping is 'behavior courts find deplorable."

Covey also issued an order declaring the Endowment Act constitutional.